This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slovakization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-19. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This part is completly missing? Especially after the effect of the turkish invasions and the Kurutzen Uprise. Decline of the prviosly german minning cities (Golden Schmenitz and Kremnitz, Neusohl).-- 2003:E5:3F21:6F00:2570:6B81:CDDC:75B9 ( talk) 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is biased against Slovaks. It is very picky as to the facts. Some statements are unsourced or based on a doubtful citation. I will conduct a thorough examination and remove any citations which are false, doubtful. Consequently, I will remove all statements which are unsourced and harmful/biased. -- 18hangar18 ( talk) 11:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean, Slovakization and postwar persecutions of Hungarians are well documented also by Slovak historians (e.g. works of Štefan_Šutaj are excellent source) and they frequently do research in cooperation with ethnic Hungarian authors. However, authors of this article did not focus on some serious description of events, but on one side presentation of facts, demonisation of real situation, ignorance of any historical context, list of all injustices (real or imaginated) in mutual relationships, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditinili ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You make me laugh. Most Slovak historians are chauvinists and full of hatred, like quite a few Slovak people (Meciar and Slota followers). Just like the Slovak language law, where e.g. a Hungarian doctor and a Hungarian patient have to speak Slovak (what a nonsense in the 21st century), otherwise they will be given a fine. And your invention of "don't be Hungarian" advertised in tv with the meaning of "don't be stupid". Southern Slovaks are also critical about Northern Slovak behaviour (they are regarded as lesser Slovaks because of their different accent and also because of their relatively good relationship with ethnic Hungarians; Slovaks told me these). Rapid decline of mother tongue? About the assimilation we can just mention Ladislav Deák Slovak historian, Vladimír Országh. Deák, Országh are clearly Hungarian names. Time not to look at Hungarians with the dark sunglasses on. At least Hungarians, especially historians are very critical about Hungarian mistakes, but the Slovaks not so regarding themselves. Time to tone down your nationalistic history writing, also give autonomy to Hungarians (you moan about the fact Hungarians didn't give you one but you refuse it in a much harsher way in the 21st century) and live in peace. Czechoslovakia gave more political rights to Hungarians than Hungary? How about the antidemocratic Benes-decrees after ww2, which collectively condemn German and Hungarian people and it's still in effect in the 21st century? Why Hungarians have not been given autonomy yet? I don't understand the Slovak kulturkampf against Hungarians. You lived in peace (it was so) for 950-960 years with them, so time to offer a hand to each other. I have a keen interest in Hungarian history so you cannot trick me. I have not edited this article and I won't, but I wanted to show you that we are not all stupid. Carlos71 ( talk) 11:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that some people try to demonize Magyars (which is true), while they deny their own faults (e.g.
Ján Slota and his followers). If you are not one of them don't take it on yourself. Whatever I said was true and can be checked easily by anyone. The two people should finally make a historical peace (like the German and the French people). extremely chauvinistic atmosphere of "millennium celebrations" Why was that extremely chauvinistic? I think any nation who celebrates a 1000 year of existence - in itself - is not chauvinistic. They celebrated in a pompous way, but didn't use the occasion for anything bad in particular, which is true. That's why I advised you to tone down your language. Czechoslovakia de facto extended political rights of citizens (including Hungarians) ... voting Hm. Might be so but on the whole it wasn't beneficial for the Hungarians, they were not happy to be Czechoslovaks and were/have not been given any autonomy (up till now). They started the settlement of Slovak people into Hungarian majority or mixed areas (Bratislava,
Košice in the latter there is hardly any Hungarian left now) and also due to the
Beneš decrees and
Hungarians in Slovakia/Population_exchanges etc. And that's why I wrote what I wrote.
I am not a liar or a hate-speecher. I just want you to tone down the way you speak. If you don't consider other peoples' sensitivity other people will rightfully believe that you are biased. If you sound/act reasonably nobody will challenge you the way I did. I hope you are coming from the second group. By the way I have no problem with Slovak people.
I checked Štefan Šutaj and he is trying to co-operate with Hungarian historians, so that is a big positive. Some moderate historians from both sides (Hungarian history writing is not nationalistic; Romsics is an excellent example Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848-1998 (Atlantic Studies on Society in Change)) and foreign opinion too would be welcome. The joint proposed Hungarian-Slovak history book would be a good idea, but I read Slota is against it. I follow your advice and will only concentrate on the problem, if I want to contribute. That is my last word. Carlos71 ( talk) 17:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also thought WP:FORUM about you. Happy you "disappointed" me. Thanks for the additional information. Apart from that info I also consider your view point and I am happy with your answers. Obviously the millennium celebrations had some kind of inherent political statement too. If we put it that way e.g. the style is not harsh but people can still understand it. You can list me Slovak historians. I know for example Roman Holec. He is highly critical and a bit strict, but I read his opinion too. It is difficult to get enough foreign books (in English) in London, but who knows. Romsics in his book about Trianon clearly explained magyarization. Ungvary is also a good Hungarian historian. Carlos71 ( talk) 18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the (minimal) content and references from Slovakization (identity) be added to this article, and the former article removed. As far as I can see this is an unnecessary duplication of the topic, although the references may be useful to this article. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I have edited the section due to translation misinterpretation.
Prime minister Robert Fico (now ex-prime minister) was criticized for using the term "Old Slovaks" (Starí Slováci) and not "Proto-Slovaks" (Praslováci) like the section "Wise historism" suggests. Just as we translate terms "Proto-Norse language" as (Praseverčina) and "Old Norse" as (Staroseverčina), the same principle should be applied here as well. Proto-Slovaks was a bad translation of the original statement.
Source for Robert Fico's statements: https://www.sme.sk/c/3659769/vlada-a-premier-menia-dejiny.html (Fico's claims reviewed in the interview with Slovak historian Dušan Kováč)
The article explains, he was further criticized by academia after claiming Great Moravia is a "Slovak state of Old Slovaks" which is problematic in terminology, as we cannot talk about Great Moravians as "Slovaks" the same way we cannot talk about Anglo-Saxons as English. Dušan Kováč explains the Slavic tribes of Great Moravia didn't differ that much from each other and that we can talk about "Slovaks" only after a centuries long process of becoming a separate ethnicity and becoming aware of it, all due to the obvious political and other factors that began after the dissolution of Great Moravia.
Problem number 2: Also, there is a failed verification: "the history books are getting rewritten at a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride" and so far I have never seen the usage "Old Slovak" in any serious history book or article. Can someone double-check this citation? If not, I suggest it should be deleted, as it does not reflect the reality. ChroniclerArgyl ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph under 'The use of the Hungarian language' about the reorganization of Catholic dioceses fails to explain its connection to Slovakization. It should either rewritten to explain the connection or lacking that, removed.
Similarly, the section about the 2011 Census is simply stating that the expectations of a single Hungarian sociologist were not confirmed by the collected data. This is neither an example nor an evidence-based consequence of Slovakization. There is also no evidence that the 7% figure of people who have not specified their nationality has any bearing on Hungarians specifically. The only source for the entire section is a broken link to the census data. I suggest this section be removed as it is at best irrelevant and poorly sourced. Dorian grejp ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Dorian Grejp
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slovakization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-19. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This part is completly missing? Especially after the effect of the turkish invasions and the Kurutzen Uprise. Decline of the prviosly german minning cities (Golden Schmenitz and Kremnitz, Neusohl).-- 2003:E5:3F21:6F00:2570:6B81:CDDC:75B9 ( talk) 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is biased against Slovaks. It is very picky as to the facts. Some statements are unsourced or based on a doubtful citation. I will conduct a thorough examination and remove any citations which are false, doubtful. Consequently, I will remove all statements which are unsourced and harmful/biased. -- 18hangar18 ( talk) 11:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean, Slovakization and postwar persecutions of Hungarians are well documented also by Slovak historians (e.g. works of Štefan_Šutaj are excellent source) and they frequently do research in cooperation with ethnic Hungarian authors. However, authors of this article did not focus on some serious description of events, but on one side presentation of facts, demonisation of real situation, ignorance of any historical context, list of all injustices (real or imaginated) in mutual relationships, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditinili ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You make me laugh. Most Slovak historians are chauvinists and full of hatred, like quite a few Slovak people (Meciar and Slota followers). Just like the Slovak language law, where e.g. a Hungarian doctor and a Hungarian patient have to speak Slovak (what a nonsense in the 21st century), otherwise they will be given a fine. And your invention of "don't be Hungarian" advertised in tv with the meaning of "don't be stupid". Southern Slovaks are also critical about Northern Slovak behaviour (they are regarded as lesser Slovaks because of their different accent and also because of their relatively good relationship with ethnic Hungarians; Slovaks told me these). Rapid decline of mother tongue? About the assimilation we can just mention Ladislav Deák Slovak historian, Vladimír Országh. Deák, Országh are clearly Hungarian names. Time not to look at Hungarians with the dark sunglasses on. At least Hungarians, especially historians are very critical about Hungarian mistakes, but the Slovaks not so regarding themselves. Time to tone down your nationalistic history writing, also give autonomy to Hungarians (you moan about the fact Hungarians didn't give you one but you refuse it in a much harsher way in the 21st century) and live in peace. Czechoslovakia gave more political rights to Hungarians than Hungary? How about the antidemocratic Benes-decrees after ww2, which collectively condemn German and Hungarian people and it's still in effect in the 21st century? Why Hungarians have not been given autonomy yet? I don't understand the Slovak kulturkampf against Hungarians. You lived in peace (it was so) for 950-960 years with them, so time to offer a hand to each other. I have a keen interest in Hungarian history so you cannot trick me. I have not edited this article and I won't, but I wanted to show you that we are not all stupid. Carlos71 ( talk) 11:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that some people try to demonize Magyars (which is true), while they deny their own faults (e.g.
Ján Slota and his followers). If you are not one of them don't take it on yourself. Whatever I said was true and can be checked easily by anyone. The two people should finally make a historical peace (like the German and the French people). extremely chauvinistic atmosphere of "millennium celebrations" Why was that extremely chauvinistic? I think any nation who celebrates a 1000 year of existence - in itself - is not chauvinistic. They celebrated in a pompous way, but didn't use the occasion for anything bad in particular, which is true. That's why I advised you to tone down your language. Czechoslovakia de facto extended political rights of citizens (including Hungarians) ... voting Hm. Might be so but on the whole it wasn't beneficial for the Hungarians, they were not happy to be Czechoslovaks and were/have not been given any autonomy (up till now). They started the settlement of Slovak people into Hungarian majority or mixed areas (Bratislava,
Košice in the latter there is hardly any Hungarian left now) and also due to the
Beneš decrees and
Hungarians in Slovakia/Population_exchanges etc. And that's why I wrote what I wrote.
I am not a liar or a hate-speecher. I just want you to tone down the way you speak. If you don't consider other peoples' sensitivity other people will rightfully believe that you are biased. If you sound/act reasonably nobody will challenge you the way I did. I hope you are coming from the second group. By the way I have no problem with Slovak people.
I checked Štefan Šutaj and he is trying to co-operate with Hungarian historians, so that is a big positive. Some moderate historians from both sides (Hungarian history writing is not nationalistic; Romsics is an excellent example Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848-1998 (Atlantic Studies on Society in Change)) and foreign opinion too would be welcome. The joint proposed Hungarian-Slovak history book would be a good idea, but I read Slota is against it. I follow your advice and will only concentrate on the problem, if I want to contribute. That is my last word. Carlos71 ( talk) 17:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also thought WP:FORUM about you. Happy you "disappointed" me. Thanks for the additional information. Apart from that info I also consider your view point and I am happy with your answers. Obviously the millennium celebrations had some kind of inherent political statement too. If we put it that way e.g. the style is not harsh but people can still understand it. You can list me Slovak historians. I know for example Roman Holec. He is highly critical and a bit strict, but I read his opinion too. It is difficult to get enough foreign books (in English) in London, but who knows. Romsics in his book about Trianon clearly explained magyarization. Ungvary is also a good Hungarian historian. Carlos71 ( talk) 18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the (minimal) content and references from Slovakization (identity) be added to this article, and the former article removed. As far as I can see this is an unnecessary duplication of the topic, although the references may be useful to this article. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I have edited the section due to translation misinterpretation.
Prime minister Robert Fico (now ex-prime minister) was criticized for using the term "Old Slovaks" (Starí Slováci) and not "Proto-Slovaks" (Praslováci) like the section "Wise historism" suggests. Just as we translate terms "Proto-Norse language" as (Praseverčina) and "Old Norse" as (Staroseverčina), the same principle should be applied here as well. Proto-Slovaks was a bad translation of the original statement.
Source for Robert Fico's statements: https://www.sme.sk/c/3659769/vlada-a-premier-menia-dejiny.html (Fico's claims reviewed in the interview with Slovak historian Dušan Kováč)
The article explains, he was further criticized by academia after claiming Great Moravia is a "Slovak state of Old Slovaks" which is problematic in terminology, as we cannot talk about Great Moravians as "Slovaks" the same way we cannot talk about Anglo-Saxons as English. Dušan Kováč explains the Slavic tribes of Great Moravia didn't differ that much from each other and that we can talk about "Slovaks" only after a centuries long process of becoming a separate ethnicity and becoming aware of it, all due to the obvious political and other factors that began after the dissolution of Great Moravia.
Problem number 2: Also, there is a failed verification: "the history books are getting rewritten at a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride" and so far I have never seen the usage "Old Slovak" in any serious history book or article. Can someone double-check this citation? If not, I suggest it should be deleted, as it does not reflect the reality. ChroniclerArgyl ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph under 'The use of the Hungarian language' about the reorganization of Catholic dioceses fails to explain its connection to Slovakization. It should either rewritten to explain the connection or lacking that, removed.
Similarly, the section about the 2011 Census is simply stating that the expectations of a single Hungarian sociologist were not confirmed by the collected data. This is neither an example nor an evidence-based consequence of Slovakization. There is also no evidence that the 7% figure of people who have not specified their nationality has any bearing on Hungarians specifically. The only source for the entire section is a broken link to the census data. I suggest this section be removed as it is at best irrelevant and poorly sourced. Dorian grejp ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Dorian Grejp